Titre
Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the eortc QLQ-C30 and eortc QLQ-Bn20 scales in brain cancer patients
Type
abstract de conférence/colloque
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Série
Value In Health
Auteur(s)
Maringwa, J.
Auteure/Auteur
Quinten, C.
Auteure/Auteur
King, M.
Auteure/Auteur
Ringash, J.
Auteure/Auteur
Osoba, D.
Auteure/Auteur
Coens, C.
Auteure/Auteur
Martinelli, F.
Auteure/Auteur
Cleeland, C.
Auteure/Auteur
Flechtner, H.
Auteure/Auteur
Gotay, C.
Auteure/Auteur
Greimel, E.
Auteure/Auteur
Taphoorn, M.
Auteure/Auteur
Reeve, B.
Auteure/Auteur
Schmucker-Von Koch, J.
Auteure/Auteur
Weis, J.
Auteure/Auteur
Van den Bent, M.J.
Auteure/Auteur
Stupp, R.
Auteure/Auteur
Bottomley, A.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Liens vers les unités
Titre du livre ou conférence/colloque
ISPOR 13 th Annual European Congress
Adresse
Prague, Czech Republic, 7 November, 2010
ISBN
1098-3015
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2010
Volume
13
Première page
A275
Dernière page/numéro d’article
A276
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Meeting Abstract
Résumé
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), which could be considered as clinically meaningful in brain cancer patients.
Methods: World Health Organization (WHO) performance status (PS) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in HRQOL change scores (range 0 - 100) in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. Anchor-based MCID estimates less than 0.2SD (small effect) were not recommended for interpretation. Other selected distribution-based methods were also used for comparison purposes.
Results: Based on WHO PS, our findings support the following whole number estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration respectively: physical functioning (6, 9), role functioning (14, 12), cognitive functioning (8, 8), global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9) and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and those for communication deficit were (9, 7). The estimates with asterisks were less that the set 0.2 SD threshold and are therefore not recommended for interpretation. Our MCID estimates therefore range from 5-14.
Conclusion: These estimates can help clinicians to evaluate changes in HRQOL over time and, in conjunction with other measures of efficacy, help to assess the value of a health care intervention or to compare treatments. Furthermore, the estimates can be useful in determining sample sizes in the design of future clinical trials.
Methods: World Health Organization (WHO) performance status (PS) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in HRQOL change scores (range 0 - 100) in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. Anchor-based MCID estimates less than 0.2SD (small effect) were not recommended for interpretation. Other selected distribution-based methods were also used for comparison purposes.
Results: Based on WHO PS, our findings support the following whole number estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration respectively: physical functioning (6, 9), role functioning (14, 12), cognitive functioning (8, 8), global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9) and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and those for communication deficit were (9, 7). The estimates with asterisks were less that the set 0.2 SD threshold and are therefore not recommended for interpretation. Our MCID estimates therefore range from 5-14.
Conclusion: These estimates can help clinicians to evaluate changes in HRQOL over time and, in conjunction with other measures of efficacy, help to assess the value of a health care intervention or to compare treatments. Furthermore, the estimates can be useful in determining sample sizes in the design of future clinical trials.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_1918A4D0E3C2
Date de création
2011-01-20T13:30:46.620Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-20T19:34:10Z